Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: jamese777
Jim, the eligibility issue has never been before SCOTUS. In the cases brought in other courts, the dismissals have been because of standing of the plaintiffs or jurisdiction of the court, and in the one case of Kerchner vs Soetoro, because of a "lack of claim."

In no court have the substantive issues been tried. This is not to say that progress has not been made. The issue will be before the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., where it belongs.

Ineligible or not, the guy is a sitting POTUS, and can only be removed by impeachment and conviction. He may be de facto, but he can only be removed, IMHO, by a de jure process. TO do otherwise would only do more damage to the Constitution than this prepostor has already done, and put us squarely in the camp of the "Banana Republics."

120 posted on 01/10/2010 11:24:33 AM PST by Kenny Bunk (The eligibility topic is closed (for me) until after Writs of Quo Warranto hearings are held.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 113 | View Replies ]


To: Kenny Bunk

Jim, the eligibility issue has never been before SCOTUS. In the cases brought in other courts, the dismissals have been because of standing of the plaintiffs or jurisdiction of the court, and in the one case of Kerchner vs Soetoro, because of a “lack of claim.”
In no court have the substantive issues been tried. This is not to say that progress has not been made. The issue will be before the Federal District Court in Washington, D.C., where it belongs.

Ineligible or not, the guy is a sitting POTUS, and can only be removed by impeachment and conviction. He may be de facto, but he can only be removed, IMHO, by a de jure process. TO do otherwise would only do more damage to the Constitution than this prepostor has already done, and put us squarely in the camp of the “Banana Republics.”


The eligibility issue has indeed been before the Supreme Court. An application for a Writ of Certiorari means that a case and an issue is “before the Court.” It only takes four justices of the nine to agree to grant a Writ of Certiorari (The Rule of Four). If the Justices refuse to hear a case, that in and of itself is an adjudication. If a case is dismissed for lack of standing, that is a victory for the defendant. Think of yourself. If someone sues you and the case is thrown out before trial, didn’t you win?
Berg v Obama was a suit to force Obama to prove his eligibility by producing proof of birth. The Supreme Court dismissed Berg’s suit.
Craig v US was a suit to test whether Obama met the constitutional definition of Natural Born Citizen. You can read the complaint for yourself:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/craig-us-complaint.pdf
Donofrio v Wells was a suit seeking an emergency injunction to stop the state of New Jersey from issuing ballots with Barack Obama’s name on them until he proved his eligibility.
You can read the Application for emergency stay for yourself here:
http://www.obamaconspiracy.org/wp-content/uploads/2009/02/donofrio-wellsscotusapplicaation.pdf
I could go through the other four Obama eligibility suits that made it to conference at the Supreme Court but it would be redundant.

The only persons who MIGHT possibly have standing to sue Obama on eligibility grounds are the only two people who might be able to demonstrate direct harm from Obama being President. Those people are John McCain and Sarah Palin. Neither McCain nor Palin has joined any of the 62 lawshits that have challenged Obama’s eligibility nor have either of them submitted an amicus brief (Friend of the court) in support of any of the lawsuits.


135 posted on 01/11/2010 5:31:35 PM PST by jamese777
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 120 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson